CAT/C/63/D/621/2014
Province and could not afford the fees for legal representation. Consequently, he has
strongly criticized the Canadian refugee review process. 5
2.9
The complainant claims to possess new evidence regarding the risk to his life in case
of deportation, which he obtained following the rejection of his refugee protection claim by
the Refugee Protection Division, and which he could not therefore submit to the Canadian
authorities.6 The evidence includes a letter from Christ Apostolic Church in Nigeria dated
18 April 2014, which mentions the threats from Boko Haram against the complainant; a
“wanted person” poster issued by Boko Haram with the complainant’s name on it; a
statement made by the complainant’s cousin to the Nigerian Police on 18 April 2014 that
contains references to the “wanted” poster and to threats against the complainant; a letter
dated 22 July 2014 from the Canadian branch of the Christ Apostolic Church written by
Emmanuel Orungbemila, an associate pastor of the Church, which mentions the potential
risk to the complainant in case of deportation to Nigeria; and a handwritten letter from
Pastor Alao dated 31 July 2014 warning the author of the threats he will face if he returns to
Nigeria.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that, by forcibly returning him to Nigeria, Canada would be
exposing him to a risk of torture and of possibly being killed by the terrorist group Boko
Haram. He fears that he will again be targeted upon return, since he was attacked and
threatened in the past due to his religion, and his parents were killed because of their
Christian faith.7
3.2
The complainant claims that he has exhausted available and effective domestic
remedies in Canada. He submits that, in any case, an application for a judicial review and
stay of removal before the Federal Court is not an effective remedy, as it does not prevent
or delay deportation in the majority of cases. In this context, the complainant refers to the
Committee’s jurisprudence in Singh v. Canada, in which the Committee considered that the
judicial review of a negative refugee protection decision or a pre-removal risk assessment
decision did not provide the author with an effective remedy. 8
3.3
He therefore concludes that no further effective remedies are available to him in
Canada, asserting that he would be deported before having access to the pre-removal risk
assessment procedure, for which he would be eligible only in September 2014, and in the
5
6
7
8
The complainant refers here to academic research contained in Jon B. Gould, Colleen Sheppard and
Johannes Wheeldon, “A refugee from justice? Disparate treatment in the Federal Court of Canada”,
Law and Policy, vol. 32, No. 4 (The University of Denver/Colorado Seminary, October 2010).
The complainant attached to the communication the following new evidence: an undated news article
entitled “Stop the arson”, which contains references to the complainant’s name and that of his father,
and which evokes a “bloodbath” between Christians and Muslims. The complainant also provided an
article from Time magazine, dated 10 March 2010, entitled “The violence in Nigeria. What’s behind
the conflict?” that mentions the killings by machete of villagers near Jos. The article focuses on the
reasons for such violence and evokes the ethnic or religious differences and the economic and
political situation in Nigeria. The author also cited Human Rights Watch, “World report 2012:
Nigeria. Events of 2011”.
The complainant does not link his claims to any specific articles of the Convention against Torture.
In Singh v. Canada (CAT/C/46/D/319/2007), para. 8.8, the Committee indicates that the complainant
states that he did not have an effective remedy to challenge the decision on deportation and that the
judicial review of the Immigration Board decision, denying him Convention refugee status, was not
an appeal on the merits, but rather a very narrow review for gross errors of law. In response, the State
party submits that the Board’s decision was subject to judicial review by the Federal Court. The
Committee notes that according to section 18.1 (4) of the Canadian Federal Courts Act, the Federal
Court may quash a decision of the Immigration Refugee Board if it is satisfied that: the tribunal acted
without jurisdiction; failed to observe a principle of natural justice or procedural fairness; erred in law
in making a decision; based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact; acted, or failed to act, by
reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or acted in any other way that was contrary to law. The
Committee observes that none of the grounds above include a review of the merits of the
complainant’s claim that he would be tortured if returned to India.
3